Facing up to the costs of stamping out GE corn

Imagine you stumble upon an oil spill that needs immediate attention to prevent substantial environmental damage, but even when you contact the authorities nothing happens. You feel completely lost when you realise no one cares. What do you do? Do you take matters into your own hands to try to stop the spill?

Yes, indeed – you enter private property and turn off the tap to stop the oil spill. When that is done the authorities finally act. The property owner is convicted in court as he, on purpose, started the pollution. People living in the surrounding area all support your move to take matters into your own hands. The property is seized to avoid further oil spill and authorities start checking the environmental impact of the pollution.

GreenpeaceHungary decided to join the action in order to put pressure on its own government to uphold a GE ban that was in place in Hungary but was being threatened by multinational seed companies transporting all kinds of seeds throughout Europe. They were hoping for a very strong reaction from the Italian authorities that would encourage the Hungarian government to stand strong against increasing pressure from the bio industry.

The Greenpeace action was carried out to identify GE contamination caused by the owner of the field, who decided to sow – without authorisation – GE corn in a hidden location. Regional and national authorities did not take any measures to find the GE corn and stop the contamination, so after filing requests to all public bodies involved – from regional authorities, to the Minister of Agriculture and even reaching out to the President of the Republic (in his role of safeguarding laws and rules) – Greenpeace activists found the hidden location of the illegal cultivation and quarantined the area.

A total of 23 Greenpeace activists were arrested by police.

After this, national and regional bodies finally acted. They confiscated the fields and ordered the destruction of the illegal corn. The owner was fined 30,000 euros and locals and farmers were happy their fields were safe.

It does not end there though; in 2011 the farm was seized by the authorities in order to prevent new illegal activities, and one of the Greenpeace activists involved had all accusations of invading and occupying the corn field against him dismissed because the judge had ruled that the activist needed to act in order to prevent contamination.

In 2012 Greenpeace Italy was fined as well – 86,250 euros – because the activists entered the field. The activists are also risking a second charge because they interfered with the illegal corn in order to quarantine it.

Greenpeace Italy opposed the charges and the case is going to court.

Greenpeace believes the party that put the environment at risk is the guilty one, and not the one that prevented the contamination. During this process Greenpeace Italy has received strong support from farmers, consumer associations and many others who are ready to declare themselves co-responsible in an act of solidarity.

Saving the environment can cost you dearly. Greenpeace believes it is worth it.

Except in this case, the corn was being grown illegally. What about all the cases where Greenpeace has destroyed rightful, legal and controlled field ...

Except in this case, the corn was being grown illegally. What about all the cases where Greenpeace has destroyed rightful, legal and controlled field trials of GE crops? There is no legal or moral justification. Right now there are two Greenpeace activists who are going to court in Australia for breaking into a CSIRO facility and destroying a wheat experiment. They weren't capping an oil spill - they were
And an oil spill is a bad analogy. There is no disagreement that an oil spill is a bad thing. The question in this post is whether it is ok to go onto someone's property to stop something that is universally agreed to be dangerous. There is no public mandate or agreement that GE crops should be destroyed, and the scientific literature backs up its safety and utility.
To destroy a legal and rightful field trial is akin to blowing up an abortion clinic in the middle of the night when no one is there. The people who do those sorts of things are acting out of the best intentions - they think they are preventing murder by doing so. Greenpeace thinks it is preventing catastrophe by destroying GE crops. In fact, they are stopping others from addressing problems in the world such as issues of food security in a world with a changing climate. That is the opposite of preventing harm - it is preventing one of the many tools we need to prevent harm, and I can find nothing moral in that.

Apologies - it appears I made an error copying and pasting my comment in. One sentence was cut off, here it is:
They weren't capping an oil ...

Apologies - it appears I made an error copying and pasting my comment in. One sentence was cut off, here it is:
They weren't capping an oil spill - they were destroying a variety of wheat engineered to have a low glycemic index and thus could be better for helping people control weight and prevent diabetes. Potentially healthier wheat is nothing like an oil spill.

Could the effectiveness of anti ge / gm campaigns be still improved? I think that it might depend on the arguments against ge (Genetically Engineered...

Could the effectiveness of anti ge / gm campaigns be still improved? I think that it might depend on the arguments against ge (Genetically Engineered) / gm (Genetically Modified) crops. Here's my personal account:

Until now I didn't know that gm plants are as hazardous as many people are claiming. But what I read today in a British newspaper (Guardian) has changed my mind.

So why I didn't I see the apparent threat until now? It's because people have mostly argued that gm plants will jeopardize human health directly. But I'm really not sure if this is true, and just like me, many other people don't believe it. This is also the reason why many people don't take the arguments against ge / gm plants seriously. Thus the campaigns might not be as effective as they would perhaps be otherwise.

I think that gm crops should be discussed in a broader context. Just an example: if people knew that with gm crops we risk to contribute to the eradication of species like honey bees, thus eventually eliminating one third of food production worldwide, the campaign against gm might resonate a lot more with ordinary people (like me).

Here is what I read today in the British Guardian. The article argued that the worldwide collapse of honeybee colonies is due to a virus, in addition to "the weakening of colonies through lack of food and the presence of damaging pesticides, that would make them more vulnerable to infestation". But "bees and other pollinators are vital in the production in up to a third of all the food we eat".

Then, in the comment section, an African grower of macadamia nuts adds his observation that gm pollen is also part of the problem. And that's what has changed my mind about ge / gm crops today. Citation:

"CCD - colony collapse disorder is also linked to the presence of neonicitinoid pesticides. Clearly varroa mites weaken bees but pesticide residues, gm pollen (meant to wipe out caterpillars but which can also impact grubs, like bee grubs), other pollutants like O3, all weaken the bees."

So why don't we argue like this instead of mostly relying on a mono-causal argumentation?

By the way, I'm an Avaaz member. Shouldn't Greenpeace join forces with Avaaz?